Latest news with #Federal Constitution
Free Malaysia Today
4 days ago
- Politics
- Free Malaysia Today
Mechanisms to probe judges exist under constitution, says Azalina
Law and institutional reform minister Azalina Othman Said said judicial independence is vital to maintaining public confidence in the justice system. (Facebook pic) PETALING JAYA : The government today reminded all parties that the Federal Constitution outlines clear mechanisms for dealing with judicial misconduct amid concerns over judicial interference and integrity. Law and institutional reform minister Azalina Othman Said said Articles 125(3) and (4) empower the Yang di-Pertuan Agong to establish a special tribunal to investigate allegations of misconduct against judges, on the advice of the prime minister after consultation with the chief justice. She said additional safeguards are provided under Article 125(3A), which allows the chief justice to refer breaches of ethics to the Judicial Ethics Committee, and Article 125(3B), which supports a written code of conduct, currently the Judges' Code of Ethics 2009. 'This framework ensures that the judiciary remains free from political or external influence, thereby upholding the supremacy of the constitution and the rule of law,' Azalina said in a statement today. 'The executive and legislature have no power to interfere in issues of judicial ethics. This is essential to maintain public trust in the justice system.' Azalina said the government acknowledged the concerns raised by the Malaysian Bar during yesterday's judicial independence march and pledged to address them transparently and in accordance with the law. She said the Bar would be invited to contribute to an ongoing comparative study on judicial appointments, led by the Legal Affairs Division of the Prime Minister's Department, together with select committees from the Dewan Rakyat and Dewan Negara. 'Furthermore, the concerns raised by the Malaysian Bar must be examined in accordance with the Federal Constitution, the Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC) Act 2009, and all other applicable laws,' she said. A document allegedly containing excerpts from a JAC meeting held in May went viral on social media last weekend, raising concerns from various parties. The extract of the purported minutes said that the former chief justice had raised concerns about the integrity of a candidate for an administrative post in the judiciary. Claims were made that the judge in question had once attempted to influence the outcome of a case in favour of a specific party, and had sought the transfer of a fellow judge for holding a differing view. Police are investigating the alleged leak of the JAC meeting minutes under the Official Secrets Act and two other laws.
Free Malaysia Today
5 days ago
- Business
- Free Malaysia Today
Govt to decide on Sabah's 40% revenue entitlement on Sept 12, says Fadillah
Deputy prime minister Fadillah Yusof said the proposal, submitted by the Sabah government, is based on Articles 112C and 112D of the Federal Constitution. (Bernama pic) PETALING JAYA : The federal government will decide on Sabah's proposal to reclaim a 40% net revenue entitlement at the Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA63) meeting scheduled for Sept 12, says deputy prime minister Fadillah Yusof. He said the proposal, submitted by the state government, is based on Articles 112C and 112D of the Federal Constitution and will be brought to the prime minister's attention at the meeting, Sabah Media reported. Fadillah, who chaired a special MA63 technical committee meeting in Kota Kinabalu today, said the session was focussed on Sabah's constitutional revenue claims and possible interim solutions. 'We've heard the presentations and proposed solutions from the Sabah government. These proposals have also received feedback from the finance ministry and the Attorney-General's Chambers at the federal level,' he was quoted as saying. Fadillah also acknowledged the ongoing challenge by the Sabah Law Society, which may have legal implications. 'Therefore, we must proceed cautiously, but our goal is to reach a mutually agreed solution outside of court,' he said. Asked whether a final decision could be expected before Malaysia Day, he did not give any confirmation but reiterated that the federal-level meeting was already fixed for Sept 12. The revenue sharing formula has been a contentious issue for decades. Sabah politicians have called for the federal government to honour the state's entitlement to 40% of the amount which exceeds the net revenue derived in 1963. Use of the formula has been suspended since 1974, with the federal government paying increased special grants to Sabah and Sarawak.
Free Malaysia Today
5 days ago
- Politics
- Free Malaysia Today
Manufactured outrage over judicial appointments: a case of selective memory
From Apandi Ali It is laughable, if not deeply ironic, that a group of MPs, the Malaysian Bar, and civil society figures are now calling for a royal commission of inquiry, petitioning the prime minister and organising walks for justice and public forums all because they fear the prime minister may appoint senior judges without strictly following the names recommended by the Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC). Even more amusing is their insistence that the top judicial vacancies must be urgently filled despite the fact that no legal or constitutional deadline mandates immediate appointment. Let's be clear: this hysteria is entirely based on a hypothetical scenario, one that has not even materialised. According to Section 27 of the JAC Act, the prime minister is perfectly entitled to request two more names for any judicial vacancy, including the offices of the chief justice, president of the Court of Appeal, and other top positions. The law allows room for executive discretion in such appointments. Section 27, titled 'Request for further selection by the prime minister', says the 'prime minister may, after receiving the report under Section 26, request for two more names to be selected and recommended for his consideration'. Even former Court of Appeal judges – the late Gopal Sri Ram, Hishamudin Yunus, and Mah Weng Kwai – publicly stated that the prime minister is not bound to accept the JAC's recommendations. In 2018, they noted that the Federal Constitution, being the supreme law, overrides the JAC Act. Mah, for example, plainly said: 'The JAC makes recommendations to the prime minister, who may decide not to agree with the proposals.' Where are these same voices now, when the media circus rages over a potential decision that has not even been made? The deafening silence over real violations What makes this sudden outrage even more disingenuous is the utter silence over actual, proven breaches of the JAC Act and the Federal Constitution. These are not speculative concerns, but documented in the government-declassified special task force (STF) report on allegations made by former attorney-general Tommy Thomas in his book 'My Story: Justice in the Wilderness'. This STF was approved by the Cabinet on Dec 22, 2021 and comprised respected legal experts, including Fong Joo Chung as the chair besides members Hashim Paijan, Junaidah Kamarruddin, Jagjit Singh, Shaharudin Ali, Balaguru Karuppiah, Farah Adura Hamidi, and Najib Surip. The report uncovered staggering facts. In July 2018, the names appointed to the highest judicial offices – Richard Malanjum as chief justice, Ahmad Maarop and Zaharah Ibrahim as Court of Appeal president and David Wong Dak Wah as chief judge of Sabah and Sarawak — were not those selected by the JAC in its meeting on May 24, 2018. Instead, they were names privately agreed upon between then prime minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad and attorney-general Tommy Thomas, bypassing the mandatory processes. The JAC's recommended names on May 24, 2018 were Azahar Mohamed for chief justice, Rohana Yusuf for Court of Appeal president, and Abdul Rahman Sebli for chief judge of Sabah and Sarawak. Yet, these names were discarded, and there was no evidence that Mahathir ever requested additional names under Section 27 of the JAC Act as required. According to the STF report: 'If the prime minister disagreed with the above selection and recommendation of the JAC, pursuant to Section 27 of the JAC Act, he should have requested for more names for each of the vacant judicial positions. There is no evidence before the STF that he had made such a request. 'Instead, from the report of Bahagian Kabinet, Perlembagaan dan Perhubungan Antara Kerajaan, the names submitted by the prime minister when he tendered his advice to the Yang di-Pertuan Agong under Article 122B were the names discussed and agreed upon between the prime minister and attorney-general.' Worse, the STF found that no consultation was held with the chief ministers of Sabah and Sarawak before appointing Wong as chief judge of Sabah and Sarawak – a direct violation of Article 122B(3) of the Federal Constitution. This wasn't merely an administrative oversight, but a constitutional breach. The same pattern emerged in 2019, when the JAC in its meeting on Jan 17, 2019 initially selected Ahmad for chief justice, Wong for Court of Appeal president and Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat for chief judge of the High Court in Malaya. After the prime minister requested two additional names, the JAC in its meeting on April 5, 2019 revised its list and put forward these names: Tengku Maimun and Azahar for chief justice Azahar and Rohana for Court of Appeal president Rohana and Azahar for chief judge of the High Court in Malaya The final names eventually accepted were Tengku Maimun as chief justice (despite being junior), Rohana as Court of Appeal president, and Azahar as chief judge of Malaya. Again, the irony is thick. Those who now cry foul over possible junior appointments were silent – if not supportive – when Tengku Maimun, a comparatively junior judge at the time, was appointed chief justice. Where was the outrage then? A convenient crusade for 'judicial integrity'? It is even more comical that Mahathir – the very person who subverted the JAC process in 2018 and 2019 – is now positioning himself and his allies as the guardians of judicial independence. Even some lawyers today are openly rooting for a specific candidate to be appointed chief justice, undermining their own calls for neutrality and due process. This hypocrisy recalls the cautionary words of former chief justice Abdul Hamid Mohamad, who once criticised proposals by Zaid Ibrahim in 2008 (then minister in the Prime Minister's Department) to create a JAC dominated by practising lawyers. He warned that it would 'give these lawyers an unfair advantage besides damaging the integrity of the court. Judges will kneel to the lawyers!' And now, that prophecy seems to be unfolding before our eyes with segments of the legal fraternity actively lobbying for appointments while masquerading as defenders of institutional integrity. Enough with the double standards The selective outrage over potential breaches, while real violations are ignored, exposes a deeper rot in Malaysia's legal-political culture. This isn't about upholding the law. It's about political convenience, power struggles and self-interest, all disguised under the banner of judicial independence. If the Malaysian Bar, civil society, and opposition leaders are truly serious about reform, they must first reckon with the past violations which they so conveniently ignored. Until then, their cries ring hollow. Let the law be applied consistently, not only when it suits political narratives. Apandi Ali is a former attorney-general and Federal Court judge. The views expressed are those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect those of FMT.
Malay Mail
11-07-2025
- Politics
- Malay Mail
Anwar: House arrest document for Najib now a matter for the courts
PUTRAJAYA, July 11 — The government respects the views of all parties regarding the addendum issue, but emphasises that the document is subject to judicial process, said Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim. Anwar said that the matter is still under court proceedings. 'This additional document is a court matter now, no issue. Let the court handle it. Everyone is entitled to their opinion; we respect that, but (we) must follow due process,' he told reporters after performing Friday prayers at Surau Ar-Rahim here today. Anwar was responding to Umno's statement urging for the implementation of the house arrest order for former Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak, in line with the absolute powers of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong under Article 42(1) of the Federal Constitution. Umno secretary-general Datuk Dr Asyraf Wajdi Dusuki was reported as saying this followed confirmation of the additional document's existence by the Attorney General. Last Wednesday, the media reported that the Attorney General's Chambers (AGC) did not dispute the existence of the additional document, which would allow Najib to serve the remainder of his jail term under house arrest. However, the AGC contested the procedure for submitting the document as new evidence in Najib's judicial review application at the High Court. — Bernama
Free Malaysia Today
11-07-2025
- Politics
- Free Malaysia Today
Let Najib serve out his sentence under house arrest, Umno asks king
Former prime minister Najib Razak is serving a six-year jail sentence in connection with the SRC International case. PETALING JAYA : Umno today asked the king to allow its former president, Najib Razak, to serve the remainder of his prison sentence under house arrest, following the attorney-general's confirmation of a royal addendum authorising such an arrangement. In a statement, Umno secretary-general Asyraf Wajdi Dusuki said the party was grateful that the AG had confirmed the existence of the royal addendum. 'We plead with the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, who has absolute power as provided for by the Federal Constitution, to execute the order,' he said. The Federal Court was told on July 9 that AG Dusuki Mokhtar had acknowledged the existence of the addendum. Senior federal counsel Shamsul Bolhassan said Dusuki had confirmed the existence of the addendum on July 2, but that he was disputing its genuineness and validity. Najib wants the government to implement the Jan 29, 2024 order in the addendum allowing him to serve the remainder of his jail sentence in the SRC International case under house arrest. The former prime minister got wind of the addendum order soon after the Federal Territories Pardons Board announced in early February last year that his 12-year jail term was halved and the RM210 million fine reduced to RM50 million.
